Archive for the ‘racism’ Category

Jubentino Morales holds a flag at the March for Just and Humane Immigration Reform on Friday May 1, 2009. Photo by Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman

With the passing of the healthcare legislation, Americans can focus their attention on the much more controversial issue of immigration reform. While the healthcare debate drew ideological lines between perceived socialists and capitalists, immigration promises to create all-new divisions — divisions dependent on skin color and nationality.

My hope is for a civil, pragmatic approach to immigration reform. Instead, I fear a debate purposely fueled by emotions linked to class, race and nationality. I do not look forward to seeing more frightening outbursts like this oneby Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly.

As Americans attempt to confront the presence of millions of undocumented persons, let us remember the issue at hand is a human one. We are dealing with people, not statistics. And let us consider ourselves fortunate to have been born with the “right” of American citizenship.

As a person with red hair, blue eyes and pale skin, It is impossible to be categorized as anything but “white.” It’s taken hundreds, if not thousands, of nations and tribes to create the person I am. And yet my unique blend of European, Native American and possibly Jewish ancestry is all merged into one single, definitive category — white. A color of all things.

Race has less to do with actual differences and more to do with perceived differences, such as skin color. Its definition and boundaries are not absolute. There was a time in America when Italians and Jews weren’t considered “white” by the U.S. government as they now are — evidence that race is nothing more than an arbitrarily assigned category.

But the real question is why societies insist on grouping people by race rather than nationality, region or tribe. Why, when there exists a seemingly infinitive variety of skin tones, do they prefer to reference unyielding colors?

“People are indeed the essential of commerce, and the more people the more trade; the more trade, the more money; the more money, the more strength; and the more strength, the greater the nation…All temporal felicities, I mean national, spring from the number of people.” — Daniel Defoe

Growing up in a conservative household, I was taught the value of free-market economics and limited government from a young age. Government was a thing to be feared and restricted. Human beings, on the other hand, should be allowed maximum freedom — at least in the area of economics. But when it came to the issue of illegal immigration my parents sang a much different tune. In their minds, illegal immigration was a scourge on America’s land that bankrupted both the economy and American culture.

Ironically, most conservatives today share the sentiments of my parents. Why is it that those who are the loudest advocates for laissez-faire capitalism are also the loudest advocates for protectionism? If conservatives truly believe in the power of the “unseen hand,” why do they not extend it beyond America’s borders?

The necessary, logical conclusion for those who truly believe in the free-market is that legal immigration is beneficial for a society. Conservatives need to revisit their belief in supply-and-demand. Perhaps then they would realize it is the demand of American consumers that brings immigrants to our country.

In an interview with New York Times’ blogger, Melissa Lafsky, British economist and journalist, Phillippe Legrain, makes the case for freer immigration which he believes increases prosperity:

“We tend to think it’s fine that foreign financiers cluster together in New York, I.T. specialists in Silicon Valley, and actors in Hollywood, while American bankers ply their trade in London, Hong Kong, and China; surely the same logic should apply to Mexican construction workers, Filipino care workers, and Congolese cleaners coming to the U.S. After all, they are all simply service providers plying their trade abroad.”

Jason L. Riley, author of the book “Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders,” agrees with Legrain. As a conservative member of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, Riley finds the anti-immigration attitudes rampant among his fellow conservatives troubling.

“Most of the anti-immigrant sentiment comes out of the political right,” Riley said in an interview with the Telegram’s Robert Z. Nemeth. “As a free-market conservative, I find that disturbing.”

Riley Argues that there is no correlation between an increase in population and poverty. He compares the influx of Mexican immigrants to that of the Italians, Germans and Irish.

“Scapegoating foreigners for domestic problems, real or imagined, is something of an American tradition,” Riley said.

“Scapegoating” is quite popular in America today as Mexican immigrants are blamed for crime, job loss and the demise of American culture. As the saying goes, “there is nothing new under the sun.” Since its inception, fear and nativism have directed America’s immigration policies. In the 19th century, Bejamin Franklin spoke out against the influx of German immigrants coming to America:

“Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs, any more than they can acquire our complexion.”

Illegal immigration is a problem as it allows for millions of undocumented persons to live in the shadows of a nation. However, immigration is the result of market demand. Americans need to realize legal immigration is a benefit, not cost, to them.

As a student preparing for a career in journalism, I’ve been taught over and over again the importance of honesty and fairness in reporting. So for the sake of truly being “fair and balanced” I decided to Google “Tea Party movement racist” yesterday.

Sometimes the truth is more unsettling to the reporter than to the reader.

I found a number of images depicting signs with racist/ethnocentric phrases spray-painted on them. Evidently, Freedom Worksand Glenn Beck have conveniently overlooked many of the events’ participants. Their reporting of The Tea Party movement and the 9-12 Project depict a sterilized version of what’s really going on at these protest — ignoring much of the racial “background noise” as Tim Wise, author of Between Barack and a Hard Place, puts it.

Now, you may be thinking: “All this racial baiting seems to be nothing more than dirty politics. It’s the age-old tactic of employing the ‘race-card’ to distract from the real issues of taxation and government spending.”

At least, that’s what I thought. Sometimes I really hate being wrong.

While many have attacked the Tea Party movement for its racial undertones, the real issue isn’t race — it’s a highbred of nationalism, ethnocentrism and racism.

Take, for example, the recent hysteria over “socialism” and “communism.” Let me first say that I do not support socialism or communism. I find them both fallacious and their view of human beings oppressive. But I do not fear socialism or communism — on the contrary, I see merit in many of their ideas.

But the constant employment of the blade and sickle and the finger pointing harkens back to the days of McCarthy and “red baiting.” Americans had a heightened sense of nationalism during and after World War II. The election of President Barack Obama seems to have brought to surface the nationalistic/ethnocentric attitudes of many Americans.

Take, for example, the “birther” movement. For sure, some of the birthers are racist individuals who don’t want a “Kenyan” in the White House. But the large majority are red-blooded Americans who don’t want their country to be taken over by a “foreigner.” They are nationalist who see America and American culture (e.i. capitalism, Christianity, etc.) as being threatened.

At first, I couldn’t imaging where all these tea partiers were during the bailout-Bush era. Now, I understand. The majority of these people didn’t see Bush as the threat that they see Barack Obama. After all, Bush was American; he was from Texas; he gave lip service to the ideals of capitalism and limited-government spending. But Barack — he’s just too different.

It’s sad to see the racist/ethnocentric/nationalistic tendencies of America boil to the surface. A movement that is seemingly empowering the people is at the same time oppressing them. My hope is that the ideas of liberty and limited government rise above the ignorance and prejudice that are clinging to them.